ATC callsign and freq readback
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A332FDECK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC callsign and freq readback
Is there a requirement that pilots to readback the next ATC callsign and freq when assigned to change? If there is, where can we find it? Not quite clear of what's written in Jepp's manual or is it done out of normal practice....?
Thank you all.
Thank you all.
If you are refering to Australia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A332FDECK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello chuck, thanks, but what does it says? Do we read back or not? There's some conflicting ideas here in SEA! In the jepp's mentioned something about any information or clearances to be read bac but on the other hand ( the sample column..) as the ATC instruction...nothing was mentioned about reading back!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it really matter? While you can argue about reading back the next station's ID, reading back the frequency given provides a great and easy amount of redundancy.
Are there any points against reading them back?
Are there any points against reading them back?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A332FDECK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not quite sure whether the point here's valid or not. Most European controllers really insist the pilots to readback at least the freq given to avoid confusion or maybe for the pilots to not wrongly tuned to somewhere else...happens pretty too often nowdays. Some old cappy used to scream at me when I readback for unnecessary radio chatter it seemed and on the other hand I got screwed by the controller for not reading it back! Went through the jepps and got myself more confused by the way it was worded and sampled out. I'm just seeking the correct way of doing things and hope that someone could shed some light to me! I know it doesn't carry that much of an impact whether you do it or not....but what do they really want us to do???
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should always readback the frequency, a small misunderstanding might cause some trouble both for you and the controller, especially if the pilot loses the previous freq and wonders in a busy airspace on neither sides' freq.
For example it is surprising how "three" (to be pronounced "tree") is so many times confused with "two".
For example it is surprising how "three" (to be pronounced "tree") is so many times confused with "two".
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it isn't written down as a requirement to be read back then it should be. I don't think I could count the number of times that someone has read back the wrong freq and had to be corrected. Not an overly critical safety issue but it could be and also saves alot of uneccessary chatter when you have to go back to the first freq to confirm the other one you were given.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flew in Europe for several years and never read back a frequency because the VHF was always loud and clear and I always jotted down the frequency on paper pad. Never got chipped by ATC. There has always far too many superfluous read-backs - no wonder people can't get a word in edge-wise.
Back in the Eighties in Australia (1980's that is!) very few read backs were required except of specific parts of an ATC clearance - and frequency read-backs were certainly not needed. The Aussies had lived with short concise R/T since Pontius was a pilot -and very nicely, thank you very much - until it was spoiled by some idiot Qantas pilot that had mates in high places and successfully managed to force a huge increase in read-backs so now its just bedlam. It is also called progress...
Back in the Eighties in Australia (1980's that is!) very few read backs were required except of specific parts of an ATC clearance - and frequency read-backs were certainly not needed. The Aussies had lived with short concise R/T since Pontius was a pilot -and very nicely, thank you very much - until it was spoiled by some idiot Qantas pilot that had mates in high places and successfully managed to force a huge increase in read-backs so now its just bedlam. It is also called progress...
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Menen
You'd certainly get chipped by me !!!
If you don't read back then we don't know if you have actually got the information. So we phone the next sector to ask if you have called. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes, in fact frequently, the answer is no. So then we have to check again that you have got the transfer instruction leading to ........
as well as wasting our time in trying to track you down.
Or perhaps with our crystal clear RT and you writing it down diligently you don't call on 125.67 but sit on 125.65 instead .... like the US crew did the other day for 100 miles. I'm sure the Air Defence interceptor pilots loved their daytime TV viewing being disrupted by that pilot as they prepared to scramble
No one is prepared to take chance letting aircraft sit there out of contact these days. Way of the world. Now if only the pilot had actually read back the frequency his error could possibly have been picked up ??? (it could have been finger trouble of course .... but a read back would have proved that one way or another)
I hope it doesn't take a shoot down, because of non adherence to 'progress' to educate people that there are logical reasons for some things. They're not there just on a whim. 'Prolonged loss of contact' is a hot potato in the UK at the moment (France is even more twitchy) and there are several close calls each week where airline pilots might be getting some close formation practice which end up being narrowly averted (company ACARS is often a godsend). Law of probability is that one day it will go all the way to the wire.
A couple of seconds to read back a frequency could avert the vast majority of these incidents. Trust me.
You'd certainly get chipped by me !!!
If you don't read back then we don't know if you have actually got the information. So we phone the next sector to ask if you have called. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes, in fact frequently, the answer is no. So then we have to check again that you have got the transfer instruction leading to ........
no wonder people can't get a word in edge-wise.
Or perhaps with our crystal clear RT and you writing it down diligently you don't call on 125.67 but sit on 125.65 instead .... like the US crew did the other day for 100 miles. I'm sure the Air Defence interceptor pilots loved their daytime TV viewing being disrupted by that pilot as they prepared to scramble
No one is prepared to take chance letting aircraft sit there out of contact these days. Way of the world. Now if only the pilot had actually read back the frequency his error could possibly have been picked up ??? (it could have been finger trouble of course .... but a read back would have proved that one way or another)I hope it doesn't take a shoot down, because of non adherence to 'progress' to educate people that there are logical reasons for some things. They're not there just on a whim. 'Prolonged loss of contact' is a hot potato in the UK at the moment (France is even more twitchy) and there are several close calls each week where airline pilots might be getting some close formation practice which end up being narrowly averted (company ACARS is often a godsend). Law of probability is that one day it will go all the way to the wire.
A couple of seconds to read back a frequency could avert the vast majority of these incidents. Trust me.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO does not require it, but some States do. Suggest you follow the rules for the country rather than your own, if there is a difference. Especially when dealing with a "Radio" such as when cross Pacific. The radio operator does not care what you say, so long as you tell him what he must have to pass it on to the controller. If you hear the chap in front giving the wind speed and temp for your level just ten minutes before, and it has not changed, why waste your time and the Radio's time repeating it? (especially when the freq is busy or reception conditions poor). And if your company does not have a contract for flight following via ARINC, why bother with the fuel? (which should be in time, not kilos or pounds). Same thing with reporting "leaving" an altitude when you have been asked to report "reaching".
And (same vein) those over domestic airspace who insist on four digits with the time, or make several calls just to establish comms on VHF when communications are not difficult.
You don't know who you are blocking or stopping from getting through when you go on with unnecessary radio calls.
You can readback all you like; if the controller is not required to confirm your readback he will just ignore it. You feel self-important and righteous when you do it, but just sound silly to those who follow the rules.
And (same vein) those over domestic airspace who insist on four digits with the time, or make several calls just to establish comms on VHF when communications are not difficult.
You don't know who you are blocking or stopping from getting through when you go on with unnecessary radio calls.
You can readback all you like; if the controller is not required to confirm your readback he will just ignore it. You feel self-important and righteous when you do it, but just sound silly to those who follow the rules.
The problem appears to be that people have different opinions on what is an "essential" read-back and what is not. I believe that the ICAO lexicon does include the word "Readback" (after an instruction to an aircraft) where ATC require confirmation of a specific message received. One seldom hears that nowadays perhaps because read-backs of just about everything is the norm.
My long gone Uncle - a former Spitfire pilot - told me that on being attacked by the Hun his mates would sing out "Break right" in urgent tones. Now that is what I would term a most essential call. But he never said they had to read it back.....
Perhaps this shows that what is an "essential" call is in the eye of the beholder..
My long gone Uncle - a former Spitfire pilot - told me that on being attacked by the Hun his mates would sing out "Break right" in urgent tones. Now that is what I would term a most essential call. But he never said they had to read it back.....
Perhaps this shows that what is an "essential" call is in the eye of the beholder..
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus,
You cannot compare a break call with reading back of a clearance or radio change.
Reading back a freq change is good "airmanship". Not doing so is pure laziness and complacency.
You cannot compare a break call with reading back of a clearance or radio change.
Reading back a freq change is good "airmanship". Not doing so is pure laziness and complacency.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it these days that everyone is trying to cut out things?
What is wrong saying, "scottish 121.32, BAW123, bye"?
Especially when the airspace is busy, I for one prefer pilots to readback my clearances properly, trust me, it saves me more time.
We are not supposed to move on to another clearance before getting the readback, so if you give us a missing readback, i.e. no freq, I have to get back to you and ask you to confirm the freq.
Especially if you have already left the freq, then the planner has to call the next sector to confirm you are with them. If you are in neither freq and not monitoring 121.50 for a while, get your cameras ready as you will get a chance to picture two fighters in flight at close formation with you.
Another thing is... What is it with the pilots that are cutting "Flight level" out from the clearances????? One real life story is a pilot cleared to FL270 readback is "descending 270" controller understood such but the pilot meant "descending to 70" see the difference?? So in such case we have to confirm, now what takes less freq time???
What is wrong saying, "scottish 121.32, BAW123, bye"?
Especially when the airspace is busy, I for one prefer pilots to readback my clearances properly, trust me, it saves me more time.
We are not supposed to move on to another clearance before getting the readback, so if you give us a missing readback, i.e. no freq, I have to get back to you and ask you to confirm the freq.
Especially if you have already left the freq, then the planner has to call the next sector to confirm you are with them. If you are in neither freq and not monitoring 121.50 for a while, get your cameras ready as you will get a chance to picture two fighters in flight at close formation with you.
Another thing is... What is it with the pilots that are cutting "Flight level" out from the clearances????? One real life story is a pilot cleared to FL270 readback is "descending 270" controller understood such but the pilot meant "descending to 70" see the difference?? So in such case we have to confirm, now what takes less freq time???
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK it's a legal requirement to readback any executive instruction and I'd take that to be the next ATSU and frequency. More importantly I'd want the repliers callsign. Just listen to how many pilots on a busy frequency don't give their callsign! Has the ATCO got a video link so he can see your lips move? Not yet! With a busy frequency and 10 flights on the R/T how can I tell which flight is replying; the radar target doesn't light up gents! Let's cut out the sloppiness and do things right.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the UK it's quite clear - the CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual says
The ATS messages listed below are to be read back in full by the pilot/driver. If a readback is not received the pilot/driver will be asked to do so. Similarly, the pilot/driver is expected to request that instructions are repeated or clarified if any are not fully understood.
* Taxi/Towing Instructions
* Level Instructions
* Heading Instructions
* Speed Instructions
* Airways or Route Clearances
* Approach Clearances
* Runway-in-Use
* Clearance to Enter, Land On, Take-Off On, Backtrack, Cross, or Hold Short of any Active Runway
* SSR Operating Instructions
* Altimeter Settings
* VDF Information
* Frequency Changes
* Type of Radar Service
* Transition Levels
* Taxi/Towing Instructions
* Level Instructions
* Heading Instructions
* Speed Instructions
* Airways or Route Clearances
* Approach Clearances
* Runway-in-Use
* Clearance to Enter, Land On, Take-Off On, Backtrack, Cross, or Hold Short of any Active Runway
* SSR Operating Instructions
* Altimeter Settings
* VDF Information
* Frequency Changes
* Type of Radar Service
* Transition Levels